64 replies to this topic

[6MGSpider]

I have created this account solely for the purpose of running mechs that are essentially dependent upon the machine gun being viable, IE the Spider-5K and the Cicada-3C. While the Cicada can theoretically get by with some much finagled AC/2, AC/5, UAC/5 build its not quite realistic.

I will not use any weapon aside from the MG on either of the two mechs in question, nor will I buy any other mech aside from said two.

I will attempt to be as destructive as possible while still being of help to my team. In other words I will not simply troll to base or rush to my death.

I will try to stay within the 90m optimum range whenever firing upon an enemy and will attempt to be as accurate as possible so that as many rounds impact the enemy as possible.

I will attempt to post updates of my stats regularly in this thread.

If anyone wishes to join me in this endeavor please feel free.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edit: First set of stats after 5 matches with the 5K.

Edited by 6MGSpider, 02 May 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Abrahms]

waste of time sort of, look at the stats, theyre pretty junky

[Dexion]

Eh, will be interesting to see the change between now and when they are buffed at least.

[jeffsw6]

Send me an invite. I will join your effort to demonstrate that MGs need substantially more than a 100% buff, or the SDR-5K and CDA-3C need to be modified so they have a chance of being effective in combat. I have purchased an SDR-5K, a mech I didn't own yet, so my stats are clear. Load-out is 4 MGs, 1 LL, maximum engine, 2 JJs, maximum armor, endo and ferro. Guessing I may not need to invest in DHS for a mech with only 1 large laser.

EDIT: Turns out I was wrong. DHS is still needed because .. tourmaline and casutic. Ugh, here goes another 1.5M CB into a trash mech. :/

Edited by jeffsw6, 03 May 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[Ryokens leap]

143 in 5 is not helping the team.

[Keifomofutu]

Ryokens leap, on 03 May 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

143 in 5 is not helping the team.

But the crits man the criiiits!

Edited by Keifomofutu, 03 May 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[Howdy Doody]

I here by approve this test and thank you much for doing it.

That being said there is no way in hell I'm going to help. Not because I don't want to, but it hurts too much inside to hear the beautiful sound of MG fire and have it do nothing! I just can't handle that pain!

[AlmightyAeng]

Well, this should have quite some bearing on your discussion.

http://mwomercs.com/...18#entry2315318

Double your damage and increase your effective range.

[Roadbeer]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I will join your effort to demonstrate that MGs need substantially more than a 100% buff

100% increase in damage and 30% increase in range isn't enough?

You people are amazing.

[Keifomofutu]

Roadbeer, on 03 May 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

100% increase in damage and 30% increase in range isn't enough?

You people are amazing.

Zilch x 2 = pretty much zilch still. And the range increase without a spread decrease is just wasting more ammo.

[Roadbeer]

Yes, let's OP a joke weapon.

Buff SLAS to 20 damage while your at it

[Keifomofutu]

Roadbeer, on 03 May 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Yes, let's OP a joke weapon.

Buff SLAS to 20 damage while your at it

SLas isn't that great either. I see them almost never. So infrequently I go "Oh look six tag lol".

[Howdy Doody]

I do love the fact it took 3,500 rounds to = 1 ton of AC/20. Awesome!

[Howdy Doody]

Roadbeer, on 03 May 2013 - 08:24 AM, said:

Yes, let's OP a joke weapon.

Buff SLAS to 20 damage while your at it

I don't want it OP, but I would love it to be a viable option for lights. I would much rather have lights circling me rattling my cockpit with bullets then hearing the "pew, pew" of lasers.

I actually think the buff is fine first step for a weapon that isn't designed to be a primary.

[Howdy Doody]

So is my math correct here?

3,500 MG shots = 140 dmg

3,500/10 shotsPerSec = 350 seconds

140/7 = 20 (damage = 1 AC/20 shot)

350 sec/ 7 = 50 sec to do = dmg to 1 AC/20 shot.

With buff in theory should make it 25 sec to do = dmg to 1 AC/20 shot.

So with 4 MG you could do a AC/20 shot damage in 6.25 seconds.

That's not that bad for a weapon that weighs .5 tons and creates 0 heat. The buff maybe where it should be.


EDIT: That doesn't seem right. What am I missing?

Edited by Howdy Doody, 03 May 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[arghmace]

Heh, I don't think there's much sense in comparing a MG to an AC-20. The small laser is the obvious comparison point and after this change MG is quite well on line with it, I think. They are very different weapons of course, despite the same tonnage, so comparison is not easy. But my gut says, this change is pretty close to perfect. Maybe 1.0 would be more like it, but it's better not to make huge changes. Let's see how this goes and then look at the situation again.

[Howdy Doody]

arghmace, on 03 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Heh, I don't think there's much sense in comparing a MG to an AC-20. The small laser is the obvious comparison point and after this change MG is quite well on line with it, I think. They are very different weapons of course, despite the same tonnage, so comparison is not easy. But my gut says, this change is pretty close to perfect. Maybe 1.0 would be more like it, but it's better not to make huge changes. Let's see how this goes and then look at the situation again.

Good points.

I only used AC/20 is it kind of surprised me how much closer they were to damage output then what I thought it would be. I'm actually pretty fired up about the MG buff!

[jeffsw6]

Roadbeer, on 03 May 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

100% increase in damage and 30% increase in range isn't enough?

No, it isn't. What's more, I know you are smart enough to know that. You are only "amazed" because you enjoy poking fun at folks on the forum, even if their point is well-reasoned and correct. Let's move on.

arghmace, on 03 May 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Heh, I don't think there's much sense in comparing a MG to an AC-20. The small laser is the obvious comparison point and after this change MG is quite well on line with it, I think. They are very different weapons of course, despite the same tonnage, so comparison is not easy. But my gut says, this change is pretty close to perfect. Maybe 1.0 would be more like it, but it's better not to make huge changes. Let's see how this goes and then look at the situation again.

The MG is not on-par with the Small Laser.

• Small Laser does its damage in 0.75s and has 2.25s cool-down; during the cool-down you can torso-twist and otherwise maneuver to avoid damage
  
• Opponent's movements will force your MG damage to spread over multiple pieces; while an SL gives you the opportunity to aim at his CT, or whatever other part you are trying to destroy, when it is ready to be fired
  
• MG has a huge cone-of-fire, further spreading damage; try hitting a raven's leg with one
  
• MG requires ammunition that is finite, destructable for damage, and uses another ton and slot
  
• MG still does less than 0.8 DPS (remember, its fire rate is actually not 10/sec but more like 7/sec) while SL is 1.0

Saying the buffed MG will be similar to an SL in utility is stupid. It needs much more than a 100% buff. If an 0.8 DPS MG was going to be super-deadly then 6xSL Jenners would be the dominant mech in the game. Guess what? They aren't.

Please use your arithmetic skills, or actually play a mech with machine guns as its primary source of damage, before posting on this topic.

[MustrumRidcully]

Howdy Doody, on 03 May 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

So is my math correct here?

3,500 MG shots = 140 dmg

3,500/10 shotsPerSec = 350 seconds

140/7 = 20 (damage = 1 AC/20 shot)

350 sec/ 7 = 50 sec to do = dmg to 1 AC/20 shot.

With buff in theory should make it 25 sec to do = dmg to 1 AC/20 shot.

So with 4 MG you could do a AC/20 shot damage in 6.25 seconds.

That's not that bad for a weapon that weighs .5 tons and creates 0 heat. The buff maybe where it should be.


EDIT: That doesn't seem right. What am I missing?

A benefit that is difficult still to express in simple statistics like this.

With the Machine Gun, you are on target 100 % of the time, or you don't deal damage.
The AC/20 - you need just one moment every 4 seconds where you're looking at the target. If you have only 0.5 seconds and then the target has run away, you still deliver 20 damage. If you got 20 seconds to fire at it, you can spend about 16 seconds twisting your torso so that the enemies damage doesn'T go to your CT or H all the time.

Modeling this is a bit harder. One approach I am leaning towards is looking at engagement times.

How much damage can you inflict in 6.25 seconds with an AC/20?
If your answer is "20", think again.

The real answer is: 40.
You shoot the moment our 6.25 seconds are clicking, at 0 seconds. 4 seconds later, you fire again. TOtal 40 damage.
The 4 Machine Guns starting to fire at 0 seconds will deal those 20 damage.

But even this is not enough to highlight the difference. The 4MGs weigh definitely less than half of the AC/20, so it still looks good. But there is still the issue of the, say 4.25 seconds the AC/20 user can torso twist. So even on this narrower time scale, we haven't fully shown the difference. But we get at least some closer.

[Roadbeer]

jeffsw6, on 03 May 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

No, it isn't. What's more, I know you are smart enough to know that. You are only "amazed" because you enjoy poking fun at folks on the forum, even if their point is well-reasoned and correct. Let's move on.

Completely untrue, I think that the changes to MG are enough, if not more than enough.
Please do not attribute motives to my posts.
I truly believe that any more to the MG would be ridiculous. And yes, I use MGs, I have them on 3 of my builds.